NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking, and there are people leaving our country and some people think we are very bad off, espesially because of this gay marriage issue. But dont forget there have been other times when things have been bad, during WWII when all those Japaneese were rounded up, slavery, womans rights movement, and it has always ended up good, I dont think this is a difference. I think gay marriage will prevail, its a bump in our country and we will smooth it out, we can defeat Bush!!!!

www.turnyourbackonbush.org

I was thinking, and there are people leaving our country and some people think we are very bad off, espesially because of this gay marriage issue. But dont forget there have been other times when things have been bad, during WWII when all those Japaneese were rounded up, slavery, womans rights movement, and it has always ended up good, I dont think this is a difference. I think gay marriage will prevail, its a bump in our country and we will smooth it out, we can defeat Bush!!!!

www.turnyourbackonbush.org

Actually you can't defeat Bush, he already won the election.

Actually you can't defeat Bush, he already won the election.

Ah, but is defeat such a blunt word? The system works in far greater ways than that...

Actually you can't defeat Bush, he already won the election.

I was talking about defeating his policies. If there is a riot say with 5000 people in DC and they are really pissed off all he can do is call the police, maybe the National Guard. He cant ignore our cries for much longer! Dont forget unless the rioters start shooting the National guard can only say please settle down.

I was talking about defeating his policies. If there is a riot say with 5000 people in DC and they are really pissed off all he can do is call the police, maybe the National Guard. He cant ignore our cries for much longer! Dont forget unless the rioters start shooting the National guard can only say please settle down.

He's ignored your cries for four years, my bet is he'll ignore you for another four.

He's ignored your cries for four years, my bet is he'll ignore you for another four.

Aah but there havent been any riots only peaceful organized protests, Im talking about 60's style protests, guns firing political crashes. If there is a riot Bush will do one of two things 1:Accuse us of being "turrishtsh" 2: Call his daddy and ask for help.

He's ignored your cries for four years, my bet is he'll ignore you for another four.

Then he is gone.

The beauty of our system is that the next guy can say all his work is bullshit and throw it all out.

His legacy will amount to nothing. He will be remembered as one of the most corrupt administrations ever......

Dont forget unless the rioters start shooting the National guard can only say please settle down.
Yes and no. They can arrest you if you do not have a permit for a march, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. Also if you look through history, most riots end with police shooting someone or the riot ends up a loot-fest and then rioters hurt eachother.

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/gays6.jpg

:D

(From the Propaganda Remix Project)

I must say that I believe anyone who would allow themselves to be driven from their own country because of one idiot's policies, which must come to an end in four years, to be foolish.

It reminds me of the playground -- "You don't play right, so I'm taking my bat and my ball and going home!" Except in this case, it's not going home, is it?

I would much rather that the opposition fielded a credible candidate, or that more reasonable Republicans were put forth. (I would have voted McCain or Powell in a heartbeat.)

Then he is gone.

The beauty of our system is that the next guy can say all his work is bullshit and throw it all out.

His legacy will amount to nothing. He will be remembered as one of the most corrupt administrations ever......

Worst case scenario: He suspends the constitution on grounds of imminent danger or something rediculous like that, allowing him to keep his presidency.

Of course, all hell would break loose, but the concept is scary none the less.

Quit your fecking whining already! If people like you actually TRIED to do something to make a better America, we'd be a helluva lot better off. So get off your damn asses and actually do something instead of complain about it!

Actually you can't defeat Bush, he already won the election.
Well, technically, he hasn't yet. He likely will, but the electoral college hasn't voted yet, if I recall correctly. And there's a chance, however slight, that Ohio might change who gets to cast its vote. But I'm not too confident on that...

Stop whining already. You lost. Your policies have been repudiated, your candidates rejected, your tactics held up to ridicule.

I hear Canada's weather is nice this time of year.

Then he is gone.

The beauty of our system is that the next guy can say all his work is bullshit and throw it all out.

His legacy will amount to nothing. He will be remembered as one of the most corrupt administrations ever......


i think that the beauty of your system (and indeed the one we have in the uk)is that some other muppett can come along in four years and say exactly the same thing but phrased slightly differently

there is so little to choose between the major parties

i think that the beauty of your system (and indeed the one we have in the uk)is that some other muppett can come along in four years and say exactly the same thing but phrased slightly differently

there is so little to choose between the major parties

"So little to choose"? I don't know. How about a choice between having terrorists attack us here, or having the Marines attack the terrorists in their own backyards?

If democrats leave, then you'll be that much short on votes for the next elections. It's almost like handing the government to republicans.

That's the plan.

His legacy will amount to nothing. He will be remembered as one of the most corrupt administrations ever

Do you actually believe yourself? Most people generally agree that he will be looked on more favorably in the future then now, becuase his triumphs will be highlighted and his failings will be glossed over. In 50 years it is entierly possible that Bush will be regarded as the man who saved the ME and brought it into the modern world. You ignore that the man recieved the most votes EVER IN AMERICAN HISTORY! His international detractors will probably boost his image in the future. Look at Churchill. He was revieled by the international community, with the exception of Roosevelt, and every decade his fame grows. He is already considered the greatest man ever to lead England. I'm not saying he would nessicarily deserve it, but if in 50 years Bush is equated to Roosevelt and Eisenhower, I would not be the least bit surprised.

Oh, and what Americans are supposedly leaving the country over Bush?

Do you actually believe yourself? Most people generally agree that he will be looked on more favorably in the future then now, becuase his triumphs will be highlighted and his failings will be glossed over. In 50 years it is entierly possible that Bush will be regarded as the man who saved the ME and brought it into the modern world. You ignore that the man recieved the most votes EVER IN AMERICAN HISTORY! His international detractors will probably boost his image in the future. Look at Churchill. He was revieled by the international community, with the exception of Roosevelt, and every decade his fame grows. He is already considered the greatest man ever to lead England. I'm not saying he would nessicarily deserve it, but if in 50 years Bush is equated to Roosevelt and Eisenhower, I would not be the least bit surprised.

Oh, and what Americans are supposedly leaving the country over Bush?

What triumps has he achieved. The Taliban aren't gone. Al-Q is not gone. Iraq isn't stable yet.

9/11 was a diplomats wet dream. Most of the world was ready to give the US whatever it wanted. He throws it all away for a personal vendeta with Sadaam.

Most votes ever?

That statistic is being bandied around like it was some mandate from God. First off, it's a statistic. And if you ever heard the quote by what was probably England's finest PM Disralli "There are three kinds of lies; Lies, Damned lies, and statistics."

One claim I read was the most votes since 1988. Since 1988 is not much to brag about. In Presidential election terms that's only 3 elections.

As far as the "more popular votes" claim? That is a gigantic "DUH" There are more people. The shrub got more votes than, say, FDR implies nothing about the quality of their leadership.

Now lets look at the vote:

The shrub won with 59 million votes. It is, in fact, more votes than any other President has ever won. But the shrub received those votes from a country that has 25% more people than it did when Ronald Reagan set the previous record.

According to the US Census Bureau, the current U.S. population is 294.6 million. Certainly, it's more than the 235.4 million Americans there were in 1988, when Ronald Reagan won 54.4 million votes.

The shrubs vote's represent 20% of the population. Doing the math the same way, President Reagan secured the votes of 23% of Americans.

I know this is a small thing, however if you are going to claim that he had the most votes ever, we might want to keep the scale in perspective.

Republicans do the real numbers/percentage switch whenever it suits their spin. (Democrats, too!) The current federal deficits, which are a record based on simple-old dollar figures, are dismissed as insignificant because they're a smaller percentage of GDP than previous deficits. (Under, interestingly, President Reagan.) Shrub buddies do the same for gas prices, which they say are not that high, once you adjust for inflation. I'd buy that, but it cost $45 to fill up the minivan, that is still alot of money for a middle class family.

So, for the sake of consistency, they really ought to stop saying that the shrub won more popular votes than anyone else. In pure numbers, sure, but percentages count. And 51% is a majority, not a mandate.

Finally, likening the shrub to Churchill is an insult to Churchill. For one thing the speaking ability. Which for the ME was a good thing. If the Shrub could orate like Churchill, the protestors would be few in numbers.

The shrub will do nothing for the ME. He seems to have plans to stay there and that will thwart the "saving" of the ME. About the only election the Iraqis will accept is the one Sistini(sp) has formed. They will not accept our guy that is running things now.

Iran was heading for a change before the war. I remember a BBC newsstory where there was an anti-us protest. The reporter noted was very fascinating detail. He showed protests at the time of the Shah and after him. He said in these photos, you had both young and old. The current photos had only the old, the revolution age. Now the young are back into the fold.

Jordon is pretty modern in its own right. As is Kawait.

These four years will be his critical time. If he accomplishes his goals. The you are probably right.

However, I don't think he can. He seems to like yes men around him and that is not the best policies.

"So little to choose"? I don't know. How about a choice between having terrorists attack us here, or having the Marines attack the terrorists in their own backyards?

Problem. We don't have the army to attack everywhere.

How many screwed up countries exist where they can setup shop?

Problem. We don't have the army to attack everywhere.

How many screwed up countries exist where they can setup shop?

Oh, glory be. A liberal with a brain. I may be able to get through to you.

Ya see, the plan was twofold.

1. Invade a country that has been pissing us off for, say, a decade or so, ignoring UN sanctions, a country WE KNOW has been trying to aquire nukes since the eighties and a country WE KNOW has had chemical weapons since the eighties and has even used those chemical weapons... on it's own population.

2. This will not only have the short term effect of freeing oppresed poeple in said nation (the plan is to kill all the murderous scum in the country, put a few copies of The Bill of Rights translated into Arabic on the table and leave) but will also have the long term effect of

3. Drawing all the rest of the world's supply of murderous scum into the country described in step 1.

4. You kill all those murderous scum also.

5. It will take a while, but it IS doable.

6. This will save us having to go into each and every single country the murderous scum may be hiding in- we just have to let them come to us.

7. The murderous scum we don't kill will, eventually, be too scared of dying to try pulling any new terrorist acts... for a while.

Does anyone have a better plan? One not involving the United States closing up shop and declaring to the terrorists, "Okay, you win"?

Oh, glory be. A liberal with a brain. I may be able to get through to you.

Actually I tend to be a centrist. :)


Ya see, the plan was twofold.

1. Invade a country that has been pissing us off for, say, a decade or so, ignoring UN sanctions, a country WE KNOW has been trying to aquire nukes since the eighties and a country WE KNOW has had chemical weapons since the eighties and has even used those chemical weapons... on it's own population.

Well there hasn't been a sliver bullet to the prove nukes were an issue. Granted he did want them back in GW1. However, there are reasonable arguments that suggest sure he would like to get them but really wasn't making the effort.

This President is rather secretive. Unless it changed but I don't get the 9/11 commision must validity for the reason of lack of access to the Presidential Daily Briefs. He said they knew nothing but the PDBs were "classified."

Chemical weapons. That's a give but what danger to the US? They can be made or acquired just about anywhere.

The fact he used them on his people is bad but you can't claim moral justification when we sit back and watched/watch genoicide in other countries(Rwanda, Sudan).


2. This will not only have the short term effect of freeing oppresed poeple in said nation (the plan is to kill all the murderous scum in the country, put a few copies of The Bill of Rights translated into Arabic on the table and leave) but will also have the long term effect of

Murderous scum is one thing. Religous ferver is something else.


3. Drawing all the rest of the world's supply of murderous scum into the country described in step 1.

That also assumes that the murderous scum is blind going to fight there. They can have strategies like anybody else.


4. You kill all those murderous scum also.

5. It will take a while, but it IS doable.

Really? We could kill all the murderous scum in Nam.

The Brits haven't killed all the murderous scum in Ireland.

Killing can only go on for so long. The Soviets were quite effient at doing it and yet lost Afghanistan. When the USSR failed. The regional hatred flared up immeditly.


6. This will save us having to go into each and every single country the murderous scum may be hiding in- we just have to let them come to us.

7. The murderous scum we don't kill will, eventually, be too scared of dying to try pulling any new terrorist acts... for a while.

Does anyone have a better plan? One not involving the United States closing up shop and declaring to the terrorists, "Okay, you win"?

Terrorism will not go away by force of arms. Being scared? That is an easy claim but as the "expert" of Al-Q once commented. They are an extreamly patient organization.

We may claim they are scared but they could very well just be waiting their time for us to say "hey we won. Don't have to watch anymore"

He's ignored your cries for four years, my bet is he'll ignore you for another four.


Unless we shoot him. There are clear shots of the white house around that the SS can't see. I might get banned for this statement but...Someone shoot Bush so I don't have to keep saving up for this dumb gun! I'm not even halfway to the $2,000 that I need! Someone please!

I was thinking, and there are people leaving our country and some people think we are very bad off, espesially because of this gay marriage issue. But dont forget there have been other times when things have been bad, during WWII when all those Japaneese were rounded up, slavery, womans rights movement, and it has always ended up good, I dont think this is a difference. I think gay marriage will prevail, its a bump in our country and we will smooth it out, we can defeat Bush!!!!

www.turnyourbackonbush.org

Excuse me, but could you please explain how gay marriage is the moral equivalent of slavery, the Japanese internment, or the woman's rights movement?

BTW, internment is still the law of the land, and completely legal, according to the Supreme Court. So, if that's morally reprehensible, nothing has changed.

And for the people who lived through WW II (with the exception of those interned) I would be willing to bet that the internment of the Japanese was the last thing on their minds.

If you had been around during WW II, and your beliefs had been popular, we would all be speaking either Japanese or German, and spending a lot of our time with our right arms stiffly in the air. And I'm sure they would have executed you after the first roundup of intellectuals.

Want to know what WW II was really like? Why don't we ask a Holocaust survivor, or a victim of Japanese occupation. One nation's crimes are NOT morally equivalent to those of another...

Do you actually believe yourself? Most people generally agree that he will be looked on more favorably in the future then now, becuase his triumphs will be highlighted and his failings will be glossed over. In 50 years it is entierly possible that Bush will be regarded as the man who saved the ME and brought it into the modern world. You ignore that the man recieved the most votes EVER IN AMERICAN HISTORY! His international detractors will probably boost his image in the future. Look at Churchill. He was revieled by the international community, with the exception of Roosevelt, and every decade his fame grows. He is already considered the greatest man ever to lead England. I'm not saying he would nessicarily deserve it, but if in 50 years Bush is equated to Roosevelt and Eisenhower, I would not be the least bit surprised.

Oh, and what Americans are supposedly leaving the country over Bush?
It is certainly true that past heroes often have their failures glossed over, using Churchill as an example, consider Gallipoli, buit George Bush simply doesn't have the credibility or national/international respect that is required to gain such treatment....It also must be considered that those who are looked on by history as villians will often have any good points glossed over......Though I can't see much in Bush's record that couldn't be used against him...

Excuse me, but could you please explain how gay marriage is the moral equivalent of slavery, the Japanese internment, or the woman's rights movement?

BTW, internment is still the law of the land, and completely legal, according to the Supreme Court. So, if that's morally reprehensible, nothing has changed.

And for the people who lived through WW II (with the exception of those interned) I would be willing to bet that the internment of the Japanese was the last thing on their minds.

If you had been around during WW II, and your beliefs had been popular, we would all be speaking either Japanese or German, and spending a lot of our time with our right arms stiffly in the air. And I'm sure they would have executed you after the first roundup of intellectuals.

Want to know what WW II was really like? Why don't we ask a Holocaust survivor, or a victim of Japanese occupation. One nation's crimes are NOT morally equivalent to those of another...
Are you seriously trying to argue that internment of Oriental people during the second world war by your country was truly a most important part in the winning of the war?

Quit your fecking whining already! If people like you actually TRIED to do something to make a better America, we'd be a helluva lot better off. So get off your damn asses and actually do something instead of complain about it!

With the current administration we are in a rough spot to try. Republicians control all three branches of the government, and won't listen to our voice. They even screen gatherings so that only ardent supporters can get anywhere near. We are shoved of to the side and ignored. We are not included in the system. We try and are ignored. If we want to make a change we would have to go outside the law, and most of are not wiling to do that, despite what you may think.

I'm sure I will get some unnessesary comments on this, but I'll say it anyway: What is so wrong about legalizing gay life-partnerships (I personally keep the word "marriage" for heteros)? It's not as if it was compulsory. Face it, you HAVE gays in your country, weather you like it or not, and they have always been there. Also, they will live in one household, weather they have a paper for it, or not. Legalizing their partnership is a way of dealing with the issue in a humane way. Also, you get better registration. Allowing them to adopt children is a different question, that should be on a different debate.
Personally, I have no problems with gays/religions/ethnicities, as long as they don't force theit way of thinking on other people.

Just if you wondered: I'm no American, I'm hetero and 19 years old.

What I mean is instead of talking about anything, just work with it and the administration will actually WORK. The Goverment needs America, not Republicans, not Democrats, not even Greens and Independants.

What I mean is instead of talking about anything, just work with it and the administration will actually WORK. The Goverment needs America, not Republicans, not Democrats, not even Greens and Independants.
But they don't want this administration to work. Besides with Bush in charge if this administration did work as he wanted it two, then theres a lot of bad things around the corner.

That's just ignorance. The reason we went to war with Iraq is because Bush planned it ahead of time, before he even made office. Then September 11th happened and screwed it all up. Had not that happened, history would have been much different.

I'm sure I will get some unnessesary comments on this, but I'll say it anyway: What is so wrong about legalizing gay life-partnerships (I personally keep the word "marriage" for heteros)? It's not as if it was compulsory. Face it, you HAVE gays in your country, weather you like it or not, and they have always been there. Also, they will live in one household, weather they have a paper for it, or not. Legalizing their partnership is a way of dealing with the issue in a humane way. Also, you get better registration. Allowing them to adopt children is a different question, that should be on a different debate.
Personally, I have no problems with gays/religions/ethnicities, as long as they don't force theit way of thinking on other people.

Just if you wondered: I'm no American, I'm hetero and 19 years old.

Actually, the majority of Americans (including a majority of Republicans) favor the so called "civil unions"- that is, non religiously sanctioned, legal partnerships. It is the religious institution of MARRIAGE that the majortiy of all Americans (not just conservatives) have a problem with.

That, and liberals' tendencies to use activist judges to subvert the democratic process, as happened with abortion in Roe v. Wade.

I'm still thinking that if we wanted to go anywhere based on nuclear warfare, then we would be in North Korea.

Now, I have no problem with the war in Iraq being over oil, but why aren't the oil prices going down then? Sounds like shady business practice to me...

That's just ignorance. The reason we went to war with Iraq is because Bush planned it ahead of time, before he even made office. Then September 11th happened and screwed it all up. Had not that happened, history would have been much different.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

Can anyone really make the claim that people's lives are not BETTER today in Iraq than it was under Saddam?

Does anyone really believe that life in Afghanistan is not better today than under the Taliban?

Do you not think that the situation in these two countries will only improve?

Actually, the majority of Americans (including a majority of Republicans) favor the so called "civil unions"- that is, non religiously sanctioned, legal partnerships. It is the religious institution of MARRIAGE that the majortiy of all Americans (not just conservatives) have a problem with.

That, and liberals' tendencies to use activist judges to subvert the democratic process, as happened with abortion in Roe v. Wade.
OK, that's something different. I wonder which aknowledged (I know it's typed wrong, correct me) religion whould actually celebrate gay marriages...

Which would you rather have:
A) An asshole who hates us and would kill us all if he has the chance
Or
B) A puppet controlled by the USA

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

Can anyone really make the claim that people's lives are not BETTER today in Iraq than it was under Saddam?

Does anyone really believe that life in Afghanistan is not better today than under the Taliban?

Do you not think that the situation in these two countries will only improve?
One word: Freedom. They feel they are now under foreign control. They may have been oppressed by their dictators in the past, but it was one of their "kind" (whatever that means...). that's why they will hardly ever allow a US-friendy government.

Which would you rather have:
A) An asshole who hates us and would kill us all if he has the chance
Or
B) A puppet controlled by the USA

Obviously B.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

Can anyone really make the claim that people's lives are not BETTER today in Iraq than it was under Saddam?

Does anyone really believe that life in Afghanistan is not better today than under the Taliban?

Do you not think that the situation in these two countries will only improve?

Sure there lives might be better but there miserable because they feel that there countries that many have fought and died to defend are being turned into american colinies(sp) and unfortunatly thats how it apears to many other countries.

I think of it this way: Britan actually put their subjects in their colonies in pain and suffering, we're trying to help. Yes, they're under foreign control, but only until we can pull out. Once we can do that, we'll do so and we'll live our lives seperately.